Paper · 2021 · Open Agriculture

Effects of soil amendments on selected soil chemical properties and productivity of tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter) in the highlands of northwest Ethiopia

Yirsaw Hunegnaw; Getachew Alemayehu; Dereje Ayalew; et al.

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
12
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract The lack of sustainable soil fertility management is a critical challenge for crop production in the world. The problem is more serious in the East Gojjam Zone highlands. Integrated use of lime, manure, and chemical fertilizers is considered as a good approach for sustainable crop production on acidic soils. In 2016 and 2017, a field experiment was conducted to determine the effect of soil amendments on soil fertility and tef productivity in the Gozamin district. Factorial combinations of two rates of lime (0 and 2 t ha −1 ), two rates of NP fertilizers (0/0 and 46/20 kg N/P ha −1 ), and three rates of cattle manure (0, 10, and 15 t ha −1 ) were laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications. The results showed that applying lime in combination with NP fertilizer and manure significantly improved soil chemical properties. Panicle length, effective tillers, and thousand seeds weight of tef increased from 25.1 to 44.4 cm, 2.8 to 11.3, and 0.23 to 0.37 g, respectively, when 10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizer were applied together. The highest tef grain yield of 2.31 t ha −1 and net benefit of 2,252.91 USD ha −1 were obtained from the interaction of 10 t ha −1 cattle manure, 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer, and 2 t ha −1 lime. This study recommends the combined application of 2 t ha −1 lime, 10 t ha −1 cattle manure, and 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer as an effective amendment to improve soil chemical properties and yield of tef in acidic soils of northwest Ethiopian highlands.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined lime, NP fertilizer and manure significantly improved soil chemical properties.

Treatment
lime in combination with NP fertilizer and manuree0
Outcome
soil chemical propertiese0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“applying lime in combination with NP fertilizer and manure significantly improved soil chemical properties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–863 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Panicle length rose from 25.1 to 44.4 cm under manure plus recommended NP fertilizer.

Treatment
10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizere0
Outcome
Panicle lengthe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
25.1 to 44.4 cme0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“Panicle length, effective tillers, and thousand seeds weight of tef increased from 25.1 to 44.4 cm, 2.8 to 11.3, and 0.23 to 0.37 g, respectively, when 10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizer were applied together.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–1087 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Effective tillers rose from 2.8 to 11.3 under manure plus recommended NP fertilizer.

Treatment
10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizere0
Outcome
effective tillerse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2.8 to 11.3e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“Panicle length, effective tillers, and thousand seeds weight of tef increased from 25.1 to 44.4 cm, 2.8 to 11.3, and 0.23 to 0.37 g, respectively, when 10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizer were applied together.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–1087 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thousand seed weight rose from 0.23 to 0.37 g under manure plus recommended NP fertilizer.

Treatment
10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizere0
Outcome
thousand seeds weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
0.23 to 0.37 ge0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“Panicle length, effective tillers, and thousand seeds weight of tef increased from 25.1 to 44.4 cm, 2.8 to 11.3, and 0.23 to 0.37 g, respectively, when 10 t ha −1 manure and recommended NP fertilizer were applied together.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–1087 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The specified manure, NP and lime combination produced the highest tef grain yield, 2.31 t ha −1.

Treatment
10 t ha −1 cattle manure, 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer, and 2 t ha −1 limee0
Outcome
tef grain yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.31 t ha −1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest tef grain yield of 2.31 t ha −1 and net benefit of 2,252.91 USD ha −1 were obtained from the interaction of 10 t ha −1 cattle manure, 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer, and 2 t ha −1 lime.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1284 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The specified manure, NP and lime combination produced the highest net benefit, 2,252.91 USD ha −1.

Treatment
10 t ha −1 cattle manure, 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer, and 2 t ha −1 limee0
Outcome
net benefite0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2,252.91 USD ha −1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest tef grain yield of 2.31 t ha −1 and net benefit of 2,252.91 USD ha −1 were obtained from the interaction of 10 t ha −1 cattle manure, 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer, and 2 t ha −1 lime.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1284 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend combined lime, manure and NP fertilizer for tef yield and soil improvement.

Treatment
2 t ha −1 lime, 10 t ha −1 cattle manure, and 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizere0
Outcome
improve soil chemical properties and yield of tefe0
Setting
northwest Ethiopian highlandse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eragrostis tef
Eragrostis tef · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Rasbak assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–120 · show in text ↑
e0

“This study recommends the combined application of 2 t ha −1 lime, 10 t ha −1 cattle manure, and 46/20 kg ha −1 N/P fertilizer as an effective amendment to improve soil chemical properties and yield of tef in acidic soils of northwest Ethiopian highlands.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1539 · show in text ↑

lime · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

fertilization · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 22 positive, 3 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Results agree

18 papers: 18 positive, 0 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.